Browse categories:

Hide popular topics:

/r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

Please do not submit the following:

i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

iii) Requests for tech support, questions or help: submit to /r/techsupport, /r/AskTechnology, another relevant community or our weekly Support Saturday threads.

iv) Petitions, Surveys or Crowdfunding - submissions of this nature will be removed.

vii) Mobile versions of sites, url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

2. Behaviour

Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behavior is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed.

3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title, or a suitable quote, either of which must:

Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed upon evidence of suitable behavior.

This is true, but it ignores the point that these works of legislation have been a cumulative work in progress. They absolutely will keep pushing until they achieve their goal, but it is also true that the People can and have had an effect on the progression of the bills' language.

Remember, the original ACTA -- the igniting spark of this trend recently -- was originally worded to felonize every person found in possession of even a single copyrighted work, regardless of how they came to possess it or what nation's courts accused them. I'd say they've come a long, long way.

Also remember, if a worm causes a nuclear reactor to meltdown, the immediate response will be an outpouring of anger at the government for not having prevented it. We have assumed for years that because they're the government, they have personnel with the expertise required to sufficiently secure our nation's infrastructure, access to the materials to do so, and the authority and funding to make it happen. That's one hell of an assumptive set, isn't it?

These bills demonstrate that the government is not so innately competent as we may have imagined where these things are concerned, and as vital as the Internet has become for free dissemination of knowledge and ideas, independent entrepreneurship, and expression, it is also a vital part of the infrastructure supporting every modern amenity that we rely upon day to day. There are more people whose enjoyment of remaining in a living state depends upon certain systems being secure than many of us may realize. That's the reality that we live in today. The Internet isn't just dissent speech and cat pictures; it's centrifuges and reactors, traffic and emergency response systems, hospitals and laboratories.

We tend to imagine Hollywood unrealities when we don't know something about the government, and the truth is that securing each vital system while safeguarding trade secrets is such a complicated topic that there's far more to it than is answered by the assumption that the government plugs in super secret ultra computers that we don't have access to and then turns them over to world class secret agent geeks. Think about how far WE have come in understanding them. Ten years ago, asserting that government systems are not secure would have gotten a response of, "Psssh you can't even imagine what they got." Well, now I can and I think it's branded Tandy.

The middle point where we meet is finally in sight.

Also, pending consideration of this bill's language by both legal and industry experts, we can say that it is an improvement on past legislation. If we're not there yet, we're close. What's important is that the People monitor and scrutinize the language of these bills constructively, not absolutely. If we can't be rational then the probability that they will be is approximately zero.

These bills demonstrate that the government is not so innately competent as we may have imagined where these things are concerned

The government is more than competent enough to protect against worms: secret and top-secret systems are all on a different set of infrastructure from the internet (and from one another for that matter) - there is zero reason for a nuclear reactor's controls to be connected to the public internet, ever.

There is no great security threat from the public internet aside from free speech among people - systems that need security are secure voiding a lack of competence that is very literally grounds for prison.

This. This. This. I know from first hand experience that nobody in the U.S. would ever let any type of stored program computer operate any critical system of a nuclear reactor. Electrical controls, yes. Electronic components, yes. But there are no internet connections or even USB ports in that control room.

The national grid? Pssh. It's a bunch of guys at telephone banks with similar 70's style switchboards in front of them. The most complex (read connected) equipment in the room is the LCD TV tuned to the weather channel. The phone line from the reactor control room to the grid operators (I won't say where) is a damn rotary phone.

I have never heard such blatant bullshit in my life as a "cyber security" bill. It is nothing more than fear mongering for the purpose of padding corporate bottom lines with our freedoms like a bird cage.

I've noticed a trend in Reddit posts, the long-winded reply tends to be the more rational and true response but fuck it, I have to say it. I'm tired of settling for a middle point. Most of the time coming to an agreement is the right choice but sometimes, on rare occasions you've just got to say no. The internet is the last haven for ABSOLUTE freedom and I want to keep it that way, there will be a heavy cost but I will pay it gladly.

I'm sorry but no, just fucking NO. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone says, the Internet is perfect the way it is right now. Yes, it's full of retards but who cares? KEEP YER GOVERNMENT HANDS OFFA MAH INTRANETS!!!!

I don't get how republicans can rag on big government, and excess regulation all the time, and then go and support bills like this. These sorts of bills are nothing more than a blatant power grab by the federal government! Am I missing something here??

Hopefully. But then whether it can is the trillion dollar question these days, isn't it?

Apply that passion to scrutinizing the text of bills, and not just articles about them. I'm not implying you don't; I'm just stressing do. Getting this stuff right before it becomes law is of unimaginable importance because the exact same bad legislation that infringes on freedom also tends to threaten the very things it was crafted to protect.

We have seen that so many times now that I really don't feel out of place making the generalization. If the fear implicit in your words -- that security can't happen without sacrificing liberty -- is correct, then the Internet's collective outcry over it should be as regular as their attempts, with a sound argument for why they have failed each time. Sans a sound and specific argument, the outrage would be impotent anyway.

Believe me, I too sometimes want to default to, "Screw you because politician," but that doesn't accomplish much.

"If you go back to 9/11 you will see that the majority of people were for the war. It took 3,000 lives for the other 300 million to want the TSA, a 10 year war, and better security all over."

Unfortunately most of the decision-flow in most of those social-developments was misguided, under-informed or in some cases outright distorted.

To break it down a little:

"the majority of people were for the war (especially after 9/11)"

Personally, I'm not sure I believe the polling on this. Yeah, in a general sense people were "for the war"...but often the way polling questions are phrased is leading or black/white,.. and things in society are almost never black/white decisions. (on top of the fact that the most vocal/outspoken critics/supporters are often whackjobs).

I think there's also a very large element (in most societies ) of media-influence. All the Super Bowl Halftime shows and flag-waving and overhead shots panning down a quiet urban subdivision..... (the implication being: "What do you mean you don't shop at Wal-Mart and you don't support the War?.. are you one of those dirty terrorists?.." It's psychological-manipulation on a wide-scale.

"want the TSA"

I'm not sure anyone really truly deeply and logically "wanted" there to be a TSA. I'd be more inclined to think it was one of those "well, shit,.. we have to do something" type of situations.

"Better security all over"

More like:... "Better security-theater."

Sorry,.. I didn't downvote you.. and I'm not trying to be anti-American or cynical... but people in power tend to do whatever manipulative things they can to stay in power.

The best type of Leader is the one who works tirelessly every day to give away (or delegate) his power to the people under him. I don't see much of that going on. All I see is BoardRooms and Congressional closed-door meetings of people in power misbehaving.

Sane in that we don't throw away what we're protecting. Spending blood and ending lives to safeguard lives, for example, is only a recourse that does not defeat its own purpose when it is absolutely necessary. Going to war to prevent war is only useful if it's being prevented in a location that would lead to more deaths were it allowed.

Rational in that there is always a sacrifice to liberty when security is increased, but the gain in security must be optimized such that the trade off is the absolute best possible. Incriminating a whole populace to protect one industry's income is not rational. Having language in a law that enables it to be weaponized against absolutely any group for any reason is the epitome of irrational.

Efficient in that the cost in dollars and energy saved and safeguarded must be less than the cost of doing so, or again, the purpose has been defeated. For example, having a farm of supercomputers that scrutinize all communications for security intelligence burns more energy and money than a failure in its mission would likely burn.

I think they're on the right track. Securing individual government and infrastructure systems is a monumental task, but most of those systems that interface with the Internet pass their traffic through private infrastructure. So, by granting private institutions appropriate intelligence-sharing authority while specifically safeguarding privacy in every realistic way possible, the approach is sane, rational, and efficient with a broad stroke.

edit: I should add that I'd be happy to see the result of this be that existing technologies get multi-purposed for security. Targeted ad algorithms do a great job of outperforming brute-force communications parsing approaches, for example, which means that Google's AdSense literally outperforms the NSA both in cost and effect. How do I know this? Were Google's algorithms brute-force, then they wouldn't be safeguarded and if they weren't effective then blogs about Dora the Explorer would have ads about the Hair Club for Men (as a hilarious example). The NSA turns no profit, but Google does. Having Google turn over its algorithms to the government would be wrong, but allowing them to use their tech to assist the nation is very right under the proper precautions, again just as an example.

There's also the ideology of 'practice' wars. Conflicts that are used primarily for economic and sharpening purposes. With the potential for a Pacific war in the next few decades, it is possible that much of the continuing conflict is just to keep the combined military ready for mobilization.

There is a simple solution to the nuclear reactor problem. Don't connect them to a network. Have a middleman that has to manually transfer data to and from the system manually. Not very convenient but it is the safest solution and has no effect on the lives of other people.

A lot of what gets me worked up about these bills is that they tend to slip in language that gives the government more extensive surveillance power under the auspices of accomplishing some other end.

As far as the internet fostering "free dissemination of knowledge and ideas, independent entrepreneurship, and expression" I'd say that's an image everybody wants to maintain because it feels good, but has little to back it up. Monopoly forces have moved in, and that's where the money meets the power. The reason people like Dick Cheney can move from government to industry and back to government with such ease is the presence of a shared management ideology and a social affinity group. Boards of directors, CEO's, legislators qualify eachother for positions they create and maintain.

I'd say the passage of CALEA indicates, in retrospect, that the Internet was meant to be a surveillance application from day one (it did begin as a DARPA project). And more and more, the Internet is moving towards a consumer, distribution medium: fewer people build their own websites, but many people are consumers on FaceBook. You can't write a novel on a smart phone, but that's how most of the world gets online: first and foremost as a consumer.

Were the Internet not a tool for the the sharing of ideas, then rather than have this conversation we'd each be in a state of wishing we had some public platform to voice these thoughts upon without running for office or buying air time.

Were the Internet not a tool for the sharing of knowledge, then numerous learning websites full of courseware, guides, peer-reviewed papers, tutorials, and software designed to aide the learning process would not exist.

Were it not a tool for free expression, then a multitude of independent works fantastical, humorous, and offensive alike would not exist.

Yes, it's tied to business, which is in turn tied to government. However, nothing in this world exists purely as an island, except... well, islands. That said, your point highlights mine. We like to imagine that the Internet is these things, and it is, but that's not all it is by a long shot.

You're spot-on about why the language in these bills must still be scrutinized. We just shouldn't oppose them all solely because they concern the Internet. If we oppose one, it should be because it harms us or the Internet. Imagine if the automotive industry would have been very carefully considered in terms of its potential effect on future generations during the lifetime of the generation that introduced it. We might not have global warming. Learning from past mistakes, long before the last person alive when the first ISPs appeared kicks the bucket, we need to consider the legacy we will leave to the next people who use this thing. If all evil intent, incompetence, and negligence is diligently worked out of these bills, that is exactly what will be done.

Looking back on the past achievements of humanity, especially those that revolutionized some aspect of life, it should be clear that our generation has a responsibility that I'm proud to say we're tackling head-on. We'll only naturally get it wrong several times before we come up with something close to right. I like to imagine that just as a scientist's ultimate dream is to contribute to the body of human knowledge in a notable way, a politician's dream is to impact a historical moment in such a way that the effects are felt through the generations. That's their motivation to get this right, when all lobby money and personal agendas are stripped away. It's not just their legacy in this case, but everyone's.

The internet can be used for good things, but bear in mind that whatever you read online, your reading habits are tracked. And whatever you watch is tracked. YouTube gives advertisers demographic data undreamed of in the age of Nielsen Ratings. And a lot of the information disseminated online could be disseminated in other ways: call in radio, public television, cable access, photocopying.

Your online freedom also means you're more scrutinized than ever. And most of what people have to say is just the pre-packaged talking points put together by corporations. And all this freedom is precarious: not just because of these "piracy" bills, but because this infrastructure is maintained by a profit motive.

To whatever extent the internet represents the possibilities of a levelling democracy, those capabilities will be targeted for suppression. The founding fathers were terrified of democracy. Jefferson was for it, but he lost. Hamilton and Madison and Adams won, with their idealistic vision of a noble aristocracy dedicated to some abstract common good.

Just as the government wants to prevent people from having a say in the terms of their employment -- in preventing most people from determining under what terms and conditions we spend most of the best hours of the most vigorous part of our lives -- by breaking the skulls of unionizers a century ago or dismantline collective bargaining now, the government will crack down on any democratizing influence online.

There is a very simple reason why we in the US are guaranteed a republican form of government rather than a democracy: democracy threatens privilege. The founding fathers said as much.

Just how deliberate this all was can be seen in the words of Publius (Hamilton or Madison) in the Federalist no. 51:

“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the
oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society
against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a
majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the
minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of
providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the
community independent of the majority that is, of the society
itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many
separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust
combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not
impracticable.

“The first method prevails in all governments
possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at
best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent
of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major,
as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be
turned against both parties. The second method will be
exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst
all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the
society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts,
interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of
individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from
interested combinations of the majority.”

The “minority” here spoken of, which needs protection, is the wealth of the capitalists. Only land-owning white men could vote until 1850 or so, and they wanted to keep things that way. The "injustice" spoken of here was the ability of States under the Articles of Confederation to cancel debt. When they talk about how "the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority" they mean to use factuous interests to prevent the poor, laboring, debt-laden majority from coming into an awareness of their majority interest.

The Framers thought strong, centralized authority (like a hereditary monarchy) was best for business, but next best is a government that capitalists can control, keeping the majority fragmented and therefore without influence.

You're right that corporatism is a problem in our society and that, even if his proposed alternative fails for the same reason, Marx was correct in his observations about inequality of means. The rest of your evidence is the trigger for a long, in-depth debate that is so far off topic that it may be more beneficial to point out its flaw in current context this way:

What corporate talking point is goatse?

Technology is a set of tools, and we all use tools to accomplish something. Youtube tracks views demographically so that the company implementing it can get something in return for their work. We could leverage our toolset to counter the way that they leverage theirs, as well. Watch Youtube videos without logging in, using an anonymizer while tunneling through a VPN on a proxy in TOR. If that doesn't stop you from being tracked, nothing will online or off. We have to be smarter than our tools.

Personally, I don't mind if corporations find out I let nyan cat play for an hour one day to annoy my fiance. I'm also not afraid of the government knowing that I watched the lastest video from Anon; how else would I have an opinion of them in line with the government or not? Caution is good, but must be tempered so it does not become paranoia. If a corporation makes a nyan cat shirt as a result, I'll probably buy it. If the government knows I'm better informed and curbs the b.s. a little, all is well.

The problem with corporatism where government is concerned isn't that they have information about our online activity, so long as the way they gather that information does not prevent our free expression nor enable them to steal our work and due process is in place to prevent abuse of the system that would harm innocents. The problem is evident in past incarnations of this bill wherein the interest of the public was so extremely compromised in the interest of corporations that the immediate effects would have been devastating had they passed. If the government is to consider a corporation as if it is a person, then it would do well to remember that every individual has their own agenda that may or may not be in line with the best interest of society, regardless of how much money they may throw behind their desires.

This bill does absolutely nothing to prevent the hacking and meltdown of nuclear reactors. It specifically says "those things aren't a concern and setting a security standard would bog down free enterprise"

This bill is about reading your e-mail, invading your privacy and making you a felon for possessing ones and zeros.

That is all it ever has been. That is all it ever will be.

This will never be a bill to protect us. It will always be a bill to protect THEM from us.

Great Post, I just want to add that there is Zero reason for a nuclear reactor's computer system to have any connection to the Internet. With the broad range of private networks their is no need to be connected to the World Wide Web.

This is probably the most well thought out, concise statement I have ever seen on Reddit (in regards to a proposed cyber security bill). I could not agree with you more. Thank you for saying what I have, so far, been unable to articulate.

No! The best thing the public can do is go on the offensive to get legislation passed which protects te anonymity and freedoms of the Internet. These bills aren't attack, they are erosion! The erosion of the Internet will not stop unless we build something to prevent it. You don't tell the rain to stop washing away your newly planted garden, you protect the garden from the rainwater!

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."

They keep pushing #2 pretty hard and we need to fight back on their level to get the point across. The point that we won't tolerate freedom being taken away. There's a way to neuter this kind of 'sponsored' action and although I don't know exactly WHAT it is or HOW to stop it - I do know there is someone out there who does know a way without resorting to illegal methods of doing so.

I only hope for the sake of our freedoms this person voices these ideas so we can do them!

So we are actually looking at three major cybersecurity bills. CISPA from the house, the Cybersecurity Act 2012 pushed by Lieberman and SECURE IT pushed by McCain.

We need to block all three. But at the moment, it would look like Cybersecurity Act 2012 has the most momentum. In fact, CISPA and this whole cybersecurity debate only picked up because Lieberman pushed hard for his bill; and this is Lieberman's last term. He very much wants to leave a legacy from his time as Homeland Security Committee chairman.

What everyone needs to do is keep contacting their senators and saying they oppose all three cybersecurity bills. The plus side for us is that while don't have the same viral momentum as we did during SOPA (people don't seem to get how privacy affects their 1st and 4th amendments), the senate is just as divided. We can keep that division by keeping the pressure up:

Its about a month old and I probably should update; but most of it is still valid and should get your research started. Would be good if people can start passing these links around so more people are on the same page. We need to kind of raise the minimum awareness on these bills.

Also, there is a disingenuous framework where people will say "but something needs to be done on cybersecurity!". There is in fact much being done without any of the congressional cybersecurity bills.

The DOD/NSA/CyberCommand has been running an experimental information sharing program already through its DIB CS/IA program. This has been given the go ahead by POTUS to be expanded. Our nation's critical infrastructure will be secured as much as be through this program.

These cybersecurity initiatives already have the go ahead and are not affected by the cybersecurity bills; although they would be nice. So there's a genuine question of how much genuine cybersecurity value add do the cybersecurity bills offer? Mostly, its a power game to secure either the DHS or NSA as the central power in an information sharing regime. Cybersecurity Act 2012 makes DHS king while SECURE IT Act places the NSA in charge. Beyond that game; there's little interest for We The People.

As for cyberterrorist in dark corners of social media? The FISA extension is looking like its going to pass; only a few senators like Wyden are standing in its way. FISA is one we really need to stop.

I hope the American people realize that the fight for Internet freedom will be a long and arduous battle with no end in the near future. There needs to be a bill drafted to end all this nonsense once and for all, because the free Internet opponents sure as hell aren't giving up.

The bill forces the people who run critical infrastructure to set up stronger security and have a way to store and share information with other parts of industry.

It's not in a company's best interest to expose if/when/how they got attacked because it's basically openly admitting flaws in their system. This is really bad for business. It was also cost these industries a lot of money to set up the security and lines of communication.

The article doesn't mention much about the actual bill, but it does say they worked closely with special-interest groups and addressed concerns of privacy advocates by clarifying the controversial section of the bill. It really does seem like a reasonable attempt at legislating internet security, and most importantly it won't destroy any crucial components of the internet.

One of these bills will eventually get through. We can fight all we like, but if we just fight for the sake of fighting, and because "STAY OUT OF OUR CLUBHOUSE", we're going to miss opportunities (like this one, possibly) to enact useful, non-destructive legislation and we'll make ourselves look unreasonable.

Yea I got the same feeling but it is definitely a wait and see.. Based on that very vague article it's hard to tell exactly how this bill empowers homeland security or other branches of our government.

This is actually very important because, currently, much of the US infrastructure is very insecure. This is because electricity, gas, and water companies don't want to spend the money to secure their systems. While there may be anti-piracy thrown in, the main goal seems to be improving cyber security in vital infrastructure.

It is a burden to business, which is why the Republicans are against it.

The circlejerk will likely avoid this, but the security for federal facilities and ESPECIALLY state facilities is really bad. Something gets put into place in 2006 and doesn't get updated. A state employee plugs in the internet so they can go on facebook and shit hits the fan.

It's an issue that needs to be addressed, badly, but I don't know if this is the way to do it.

Sorry in advance for hijacking your comment, and for the hideously blatant self-promotion: I have written about SECURE IT, but I wouldn't say I reported all the pros and cons. So here are some more of the pros that I failed to mention.

I do know that cyberattacks from nation states are a real and dangerous thing — thanks in part to our ownshenanigans. I also have heard from acquaintances in the commercial cybersecurity industry that China is at least attempting to counter-arm the U.S. in this regard. Whether the "cyber 9-11 claims" coming from people like Sen. Lieberman are true or just scaremongering, I can't say for certain.

Lieberman, as you may know, is the lead sponsor of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (CSA) — the bill to which SECURE IT is actually in response. The primary difference between the two bills is that CSA would impose a government regulatory system, headed by the Department of Homeland Security, to require companies that operate "critical infrastructure" networks or systems, like electrical grids or air traffic control systems, to meet certain security standards. Fail, and face a penalty. SECURE IT simply offers "incentives" to meet such standards. If you oppose "big government" impositions on business outright, then this is certainly a "pro" for SECURE IT.

As with any government attempt to make us safer, these bills could help stop something catastrophic. That's not to say they will — but they could. And considering that the Pentagon now reserves the right to respond to cyberattacks with missiles and guns, stopping such attacks before they really happen is a pure good, both because of the damage they may cause and our likely brutal reaction to that damage.

All that said, I don't believe we should succumb to these bills. Both include nearly the exact same troublesome language as CISPA (i.e. that businesses may share vaguely defined "cyberthreat intelligence" with the government "not withstanding any other law)," and a hell of a lot more. (CISPA was about 19 pages, I believe, in the form that passed the House. CSA/SECURE IT are both over 100 pages; CSA is over 200 pages.) They both pose the potential for legal infringement upon our civil liberties.

We've not even seen the bill yet, so in my opinion we should put away our pitchforks until we know what it would entail. If it's got some screwy language in it that would have the potential to place unreasonable limits on the internet, then by all means let's go to town on it. Until then, though, all we know about it is that it aims to address teh hax0rs.

I feel like the only proper answer to the hax0rs is to set up an elite team of hax0rs to release internet justice on teh hax0rs when teh hax0rs get out of line. Then give the elite team the power to say to refuse an assignment on grounds of "Teh hax0rs have a point."

Agreed. A bit of level-headedness is needed after the screaming show that was all of the cyber-security bills up to this point.

All I want is for my information in a datacenter somewhere to have analogous privacy protection to information written down on a piece of paper in my desk drawer. If you don't have a warrant or similar action which is accountable to a higher judicial body requiring probable cause, then you have no need to look at data pertaining to me.

I think most people will agree with that line in the sand. What constitutes "probably cause" in this case is another discussion, but the circumnavigation of the judicial system is my primary concern at this point.

Government Logic: Let's control the Internet! It involves the entire world and we have no business messing with it as we have already screwed with major websites, and our ideas have been shot down by the public multiply, so let's try again!

It's not the acronyms... it's this attitude toward informing the public. When I saw this article two days ago, I nearly shit myself and wanted to drive to Atlanta and punch some motherfucker in the throat.

The media has a uniquely American joy and sense of entitlement to blow smoke up your ass and subvert the will of the people. Acronyms are just one tool we love to use to do it. Another is throwing around the word "children," because we need to think of them.

It makes people use emotional judgement rather than logical judgement on bills. Who would oppose the PATRIOT Act? Don't you want to be a Patriot? Same with the stupid names like Protect Children from Internet Porn Act or No Child Left Behind. You oppose them? You hate children you godless heathen. It's manipulation. Pure and simple.

Well what the Americans did, in ever the American way, was throw money at it until it became a plutocracy.

Its an upgrade feature!!

They still hold elections every now and again but as long as directors of Morgan Stanley/bank of america etc keep coming in and out of employment of the banks and government, it ensures the rest of the world can laughing at their standard of living.

I feel like we need a Double Jeopardy law for the Congress and Senate... Just like you can't be tried for the same crime twice, they shouldn't be able to repackage the same shit laws over and over again to try and get them to pass. If they make a suggestion, and it gets turned down, they should not be able to suggest it more than 1 other time.

Right now, they're just going to keep repackaging the shit over and over until it finally passes because they've been bought by the people that need it to pass.

yeah they hate the net, global marketplace and competition not to mention the free flow of information on current events, i can see why the GOP wants to get rid of this monster, so a handful of corporate cocksuckers can sit back in a protected minority and use your tax dollars to feather their nests that could be used on say free healthcare

We're finally in sight of a middle point. This is still pretty far but it's close enough to say that we HAVE been making progress. We can't let up though. The SOPA and ACTA outrage has certainly helped. From what I read in the article, the restrictions have relaxed considerably.

The Republican senators said their new bill tightens the definition of "cyber threat information" and clarifies that the government cannot use or retain the information for reasons other those specified in the bill. They also said it creates new oversight authorities to protect privacy and civil liberties.

A. WHERE THE FUCK are they coming up with the time to spend on this fucking shit?! I mean seriously. We're technically still at war. We have major economic issues. We have a budget that is wildly spiraling out of control. We have massive issues with education and healthcare. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE THINGS FIRST. Then and only then can you start doing something for all the special interest groups who's proverbial dicks you've been sucking for money.

B. "The new version of the legislation, S. 3342... clarifies that the government cannot use or retain the information for reasons other those specified in the bill." Yes, they will surely hold to this promise. I mean, we have no way of knowing, but we can just trust them to do that.

The Republican senators said their new bill tightens the definition of "cyber threat information" and clarifies that the government cannot use or retain the information for reasons other those specified in the bill.

So where's the verbage of the bill? I am looking for the "and other reasons" or "but not limited to" clause.

That's where the deal breaker happens... open ended, broad legislation... especially over this "series of tubes" they hear so much about.

There are arguments to be made that it's not Congress that wants it, it's the special interests in their pockets that do.

And when you think about it, it's a win for them. Most of the public doesn't understand the issue very well, so it when a Congressperson gets up and tells constituents "I made the internet safer for you and your children," people believe it.

What's really annoying is that Camila Knowles - Sen Chambliss's State Director and General Consul - said that after SOPA/PIPA backlash, she didn't think Chambliss would even bother trying another piece of legislation like this.

Can we just all agree that lobbyists and political donations need to be removed? The big 7 wouldn't be able to keep pushing this garbage if the Senate and House weren't being funneled billions to try to make it pass.

I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the Secure IT Act. Secure IT would remove legal barriers that prevent companies from sharing information about cyber threats with one another and with the government. This is anti-democratic and frankly after the enourmous public outcry and defeat of SOPA and CISPA I am outraged that Congress continues to push this type of legislation. The public is well aware by now that Congress thinks it can pass unpopular legislation by renaming it and disguising the true intent behind constantly shifting justifications (piracy, child pornography, viruses).

We are no longer fooled by the misleading bill names and scare tactics. Vote NO on Secure IT.

I used to go on longer with these but really they have some staffer reading subject lines and counting yeas/nays in a spreadsheet.

These "cybersecurity" bills have always baffled me. Someone please answer the following very simple question. What problem is this bill trying to solve? If there's a real reason, then surely we can figure out a solution without the need for further breaking down privacy. I'm not so jaded to think that what the Senate is trying to do is just strip more of our freedom for no reason. Surely they're trying to accomplish something and are just doing so in their usual clumsy, ill-informed way. So far the only debate I've heard is the government saying we need "cybersecurity" (whatever that means) and the internet saying "boooo! you suck!"

Is this a regulatory bill to ensure that all of our infrastructure maintain a certain standard of computer security? Ok, I can see that, but then why should that ever effect private citizens?

Is it a bill that grants intelligence and local law enforcement agencies more power to seize digital information deemed a security threat? If so, then why is that needed? Trying to pass a new bill implies a claim that the current system of obtaining a warrant doesn't work. Why not? What problem are you trying to solve?

We need a good "explain it to me like I'm five years old explanation" in here.

us populace response - its not the PEOPLE in the government, they are fine, don't be ridiculous, it's just this singular law/bill they are trying to pass. blaming the people doin it, over and over and over and over and over and over and over would be silly. the answer is to focus on the legislation, it has 0 to do with the people having no personal accountability.

For whatever reason, my biggest issue is the ridiculous title of the bill. Honestly, what happened to the time when we named bills after people, like the Glass-Steagall Act? Why must Congress resort to such silliness?

It's gotten to the point where anytime a bill or effort is predominately backed/promoted/led by Republicans I can just predict or assume it will be something evil. I can't believe the numbnuts that for vote them.

The idea that they're trying to pass this off as a measure to protect corps from cyber threats really pisses me off. As a former security tech in several large corporations, I can tell you that the cyber security folks are very well aware of the threats they face, and no congressional bill will give them the tools to their job any better than they already do.

There is a hidden war going on to dominate the internet. We are at a crucial point in human evolution, so this generation has a responsibility to stop dicking around, and find ways to try to protect the future. The world is changing fast, and the chips are about to fall down.